Mountain Project Logo

Route Ratings

joe q fed up · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2007 · Points: 0

hey wolf man, perhaps if you were to take things a little less seriusly you'd have noted the drippings of sarcasm in my previous post. Breathe deep bro: sunshine in, cobwebs out!

Joe Flankston · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2007 · Points: 0
Daniel Crescenzo wrote:Amazing how a dignified thread with a purpose can turn into a flame session just like that. Hey, fellas this isn't FRB, enough with the douchebaggery. I respect anyone who puts up anything regardless of ratings. 80% of the climbers out there, you know, the people that buy the gear and keep it mass produced (Troll translation: Large batch cheaper, small batch more expensive) aren't climbing much higher than 5.10. So cool it and love your fellow climber. Hey Joe, If you want to get into a heated debate of ego driven horse shit there is a bunch of trolls on the FRB forum just looking for a delusional dry hump. Go git it.
Yo wolfman, maybe you're the one who needs to grab a soft pillow and find a dark corner. What does FRB stand for anyway, a french international airport code. Anyhow, if you want "real" results, you need to be open to discussions across the board, ego or whatever the discussion entails, "real" science is all encompassing, didn't you learn that in Biology I? If we can't get creative in our presentation, we may as well just dig a hole, jump in it and wait for dehydration to kick in. Oh yeah, hey jo Q or whoever you are, isn't it time for that next wine cooler?
joe q fed up · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2007 · Points: 0

At least I'm drinkin' 'em and not using them for rectal skullduggery! FRB : Fat Retarded Bastards; must be where the rest of these hosers dwell. Or Front Range Big-talkers, another common species.

Joe Flankston · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2007 · Points: 0
joe q fed up wrote:At least I'm drinkin' 'em and not using them for rectal skullduggery! FRB : Fat Retarded Bastards; must be where the rest of these hosers dwell. Or Front Range Big-talkers, another common species.

You mean "sipping" them right? Yeah, I guess I'll agree with you on the "front rangers" too busy talking not enough time doing. Is that a generalization? Na
Daniel Crescenzo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 25

The Joes appear to be mounting some sort of WWFesque tag team trolling assault on front range climbers. Get a couple of kids high on stems, seeds, and Zima on the internet and see what happens.

Joe Flankston · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2007 · Points: 0
Daniel Crescenzo wrote:The Joes appear to be mounting some sort of WWFesque tag team trolling assault on front range climbers. Get a couple of kids high on stems, seeds, and Zima on the internet and see what happens.
I don't get it. Speaking of stems and seeds, isn't Fesque a type of grass? By the way, do you have a tattoo? Just curious. Oh, I actually love climbing on the front range, its epic but the smogs not!
joe q fed up · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2007 · Points: 0

Hey Joe, I guess this makes us somke sort of tag team duo >high-five<! I got nothing against the front range climbs, its the 5*10^78 people that seem to be queing up at all hours of the day and night to get on them and then racing home to bicker on MP that rub my scruff. Its the fact that the Front Range is nothing but an extension of Kansas that happens to butt up against some foothills yet everyone that lives out there thinks they are living in some sort of mountain town. And, its the smug attitude exuding from the previous posts that living on the Front Range implicitly seems to imbue in residents of the Den-Bo-FoCo-Gree-Springs Metroplex. Ratings and climbs are ratings and climbs. Period. Get over it, get out and get on something instead of blistering your typing tips, you pantywaists!

Richard Radcliffe · · Erie, CO · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 225
joe q fed up wrote:Hey Joe...
Incontrovertibly profound.
Joe Flankston · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2007 · Points: 0
Richard Radcliffe wrote: Incontrovertibly profound.
I agree with Richard! However, Dr. Creshendo has some mouthy front range froth bubbling out of his stretched lips. But, to be expected when you can't climb any harder than your own height. Whatever.
Nick Stayner · · Wymont Kingdom · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 2,315
Joe Flankston wrote: Oh, yeah, the guys a "sandbagger", he's not looking for recognition until some weekend warrior hops on his 5.9 and gets spanked.
Ah, "recognized".
Richard Radcliffe · · Erie, CO · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 225
Joe Flankston wrote:I agree with Richard!
Hmmmm. I guess I need to work on my sarcasm. Perhaps a little less unobvious.
SaraB · · whitefish mt · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 295

It's incredible how a post that initially received many quality responses about a highly debatable topic has now turned into a sarcasm-riddled, ego-driven competition of who can put down the most... perhaps there is some relevance between the turn this has taken and the research I'm doing...

Mike Lane · · AnCapistan · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 880

Sara, Ken pretty much nails it:

Ken Cangi wrote: Another anonymous troll. You can always tell when the students are back.
Richard Radcliffe · · Erie, CO · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 225
SaraB wrote:... perhaps there is some relevance between the turn this has taken and the research I'm doing...
I think there is relevance, especially considering that you’re in a psychology program: the human ego. The thread started to go bad when it was implied that 5.9 was a grade not worthy of “recognition”. That was all that was needed for the thing to go south. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a route’s rating is subjective and dependent on numerous factors, the primary one being past experience. One generally rates a climb based on how difficult it is relative to rated climbs that they’ve done in the past, although it’s clear that the YDS has evolved somewhat since its inception. But ego always plays a part, throwing an irrational twist to the whole thing. I can’t help but wonder if gym climbing, which is where many (most?) new climbers first learn to climb in this day and age, has fostered an attitude that climbing is all about pushing the numbers. To a certain extent, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with pushing oneself and the numbers serve as a scale of achievement and progress. But for many people that’s ALL that it’s about. Climbs that are around 2 or 3 letter grades lower than their current project is nothing but a warm-up; anything less is not even worth rating, much less climbing (“…it’s 5.7 or 5.8. Who can tell? Who cares?”). A balanced climber, at least in my mind, is just as happy struggling on a 40 foot .12b as on a 10 pitch 5.2.

So, you can never know what’s in the mind of the troll. But as a budding psychologist, you should embrace the idea that any rating system, especially one that involves athletics, is going to be burdened (enlightened?) with the human ego. Maybe that’s really what you’re investigating anyway...
joe q fed up · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2007 · Points: 0

...or maybe its the mischievous miscreant who can demonstrate that poking a little fun and stirring the pot a bit gets some people's skivvies in a bunch. Is it not abundantly clear that some people are taking all of this a tad too serious? How about a hearty har-har, rather than a sniffle and whine. If Warren H were here he'd eat you dolts for breakfast.

Joe Flankston · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2007 · Points: 0
Richard Radcliffe wrote: I think there is relevance, especially considering that you’re in a psychology program: the human ego. The thread started to go bad when it was implied that 5.9 was a grade not worthy of “recognition”. That was all that was needed for the thing to go south. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a route’s rating is subjective and dependent on numerous factors, the primary one being past experience. One generally rates a climb based on how difficult it is relative to rated climbs that they’ve done in the past, although it’s clear that the YDS has evolved somewhat since its inception. But ego always plays a part, throwing an irrational twist to the whole thing. I can’t help but wonder if gym climbing, which is where many (most?) new climbers first learn to climb in this day and age, has fostered an attitude that climbing is all about pushing the numbers. To a certain extent, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with pushing oneself and the numbers serve as a scale of achievement and progress. But for many people that’s ALL that it’s about. Climbs that are around 2 or 3 letter grades lower than their current project is nothing but a warm-up; anything less is not even worth rating, much less climbing (“…it’s 5.7 or 5.8. Who can tell? Who cares?”). A balanced climber, at least in my mind, is just as happy struggling on a 40 foot .12b as on a 10 pitch 5.2. So, you can never know what’s in the mind of the troll. But as a budding psychologist, you should embrace the idea that any rating system, especially one that involves athletics, is going to be burdened (enlightened?) with the human ego. Maybe that’s really what you’re investigating anyway...
So, bla bla bla bla bla....So we've finally come full circle, yes, these were the initial intentions for turning up the juice on the corral fence. Only in the efforts of "stirring the pot" do we truely get to taste that scrumptious nectar that is stuck to the bottom of the pan. 5.6 does kick ass as does 12+, actually I'd rather climb 2000 ft. of 5.9 over five pitches of 5.11 any day. However, some folks should bust out the hook, dig deep and really get those panties out of a bunch. It will impede your progress as a person and in climbing. Even the anus needs to breath once in awhile...are we getting somewhere yet? I think so....great post by the way.
Sam Lightner, Jr. · · Lander, WY · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 2,732
SaraB wrote: perhaps there is some relevance between the turn this has taken and the research I'm doing...
THere is.
I've been establishing routes for about 25 years. I think grading those routes has been more art than science. art has ego.
Thats about all I'm gonna TYPE on this subject.
Nick Stayner · · Wymont Kingdom · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 2,315
Richard Radcliffe wrote: I think there is relevance, especially considering that you’re in a psychology program: the human ego. The thread started to go bad when it was implied that 5.9 was a grade not worthy of “recognition”.
I wasn't trying to say that 5.9 is an unworthy grade. Joe Flankston's example described a new-school climber establishing a 5.11+ and calling it 5.9 for purposes of "recognition". I had a problem with the term "recognition"--it's a loaded phrase, and can be taken multiple ways. Recognized by who? Certainly not the climbing shiterags. The only recognition I could see happening would be by the local climbing community. They would promptly laugh at this guy's grade and establish a higher consensus. Thus, the whole scenario didn't make a lot of sense.
Daniel Crescenzo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 25

Hey folks I have a great idea. Let's stop quibbling and get this thread back on track. The more you bicker about stuff the bigger the bulge in the troll's pants get. When they get too excited they start humping this thread and the whole darned cycle perpetuates.

Joe Flankston · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2007 · Points: 0
Daniel Crescenzo wrote:Hey folks I have a great idea. Let's stop quibbling and get this thread back on track. The more you bicker about stuff the bigger the bulge in the troll's pants get. When they get too excited they start humping this thread and the whole darned cycle perpetuates.
OK so what do you have to add? Your usage of the word "troll" is getting old, something more creative perhaps? It appears you haven't grabbed that pillow and found a dark corner yet...or maybe you're ready for round two. While you're at it, I'll try and nail your tick list of 5.6R routes and beat you to the 200 mark of friends on "My Space".
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Route Ratings"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.